The collection and processing of geophysical data is critical to the development and management of the world's renewable hydrocarbon-based oil and gas fuels. Geophysical data, including seismic data, is collected for both land and marine geography. Once collected, it is processed using sophisticated digital signal processing techniques and made available for visualization by human experts. These experts analyze the data and make experience-based predictions as to the potential hydrocarbon reserves in the imaged geological structures.
The collection and processing of geophysical data is a massive and costly effort. Marine data collection, typically done by private boat operators in accordance with business relationships described below, is time consuming and expensive. A typical data collection effort for a specified geographic area, termed a “shoot,” involves the generation of shockwaves, the echoes of which are collected by thousands of seismic sensors configured for 2- or 3-dimensional data collection and towed on lengthy streamers behind large, electronics-filled ships. Gigabytes of data are collected and stored for subsequent digital processing. For example, a 3-dimensional shoot in the Gulf of Mexico over a geographic area of 3 square miles could result in the collection of 240 gigabytes of data at a collection cost of $300,000.00. This cost does not include marketing and equipment deployment costs, which can add substantially to the data collection costs.
Land geophysical surveys are typically conducted over large geographical areas (tens to hundreds of square kilometers). Land surveys may take anywhere from a few days to a few years to complete, and require crews ranging from 20 to 1,000+ people. Land surveys require capital equipment valued in the tens of millions of dollars.
Seismic surveys are the first in a series of costly and time-consuming exploratory efforts undertaken prior to drilling for the production of gas and oil. If the results of a seismic survey appear promising, then exploratory drilling may be performed, typically through the use of expensive boat-based technology to explore deep-water resources. If exploratory drilling yields positive results, then the drilling of appraisal wells may follow.
If all of the preliminary activities yield positive results, a permanent drilling and production infrastructure may be built. Such an infrastructure is extraordinarily expensive to both construct and operate. For example, a deep-water drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico could take 7-8 years and cost in the range of $1,000,000,000.00 to construct. The ongoing cost of operation is in the range of $25-35,000,000.00 per year for an estimated lifespan of 20 years.
It will thus be seen that the collection, review and analysis of seismic data comprises the first in an expensive and long-term series of exploration, drilling and production activities. Dated, corrupt or otherwise faulty or inadequate seismic data could initiate a chain of events that would waste significant amounts of money and result in the loss of valuable alternate opportunities. Exploration and Production (“E&P”) companies collectively spend billions of dollars per year to support the acquisition and analysis of geophysical data, with the expectation that such data will help them build and replenish their inventories of prospects to drill, and minimize or avoid mistakes in selecting drilling sites. The availability of current, accurate geophysical data is of paramount importance to E&P companies.
Despite the value and importance of geophysical data, the existing market for collecting, updating and marketing such data is not an efficient one. Typically, geophysical data is collected in accordance with one of three different models.
In a first model, the geophysical data collector, or seismic company, collects marketing input including information from prospective E&P customers. It then makes its own decision as to what geographical area and parameters it is going to shoot. In a speculative shoot of this type, the seismic company borrows money or spends its own funds to cover the cost of the shoot. During or upon completion of the shoot, the seismic company attempts to market the data to one or more E&P companies. If the seismic company is successful, they may make a profit on the shoot. If the seismic company is unsuccessful, they may loose a great deal of money on the shoot. Regardless, under such a model the E&P company does not play a direct role in selecting the geographical area of the shoot. In fact, E&P companies may be reluctant to provide too much guidance because E&P company information may be considered trade secret. Thus, while speculative shoot data may be of value, it may not cover the most important area or include the most desirable shoot parameters for any single E&P customer. This type of data collection model is thus risky for the seismic company and not necessarily most efficient for a given E&P company.
In a second type of shoot, a proprietary shoot, a single E&P company engages a seismic company and funds the entire shoot. The E&P company thus gets to select the geographical location, type and extent of data collected and owns all of the data generated during the shoot. This model of geophysical data collection shifts much of the risk from the seismic company to the E&P company. It enables the E&P company to select the area and data type it believes to be most important to its current and future business positions. However, the cost to the E&P company is very high. If the data turns out to be of a lower value than expected, the E&P company will have suffered a significant financial loss. Further, the company will have wasted a significant portion of an allocated seismic budget, thereby reducing opportunities to consider and explore alternate opportunities. Ultimately, multiple failed opportunities could challenge an E&P company's ability to plan the development and profitable deployment of long-term drilling and production resources.
In a third type of shoot, the seismic company solicits multiple E&P companies to sponsor a shoot to develop data that will ultimately be shared by all of the sponsors. While superficially a multi-client shoot appears to be one of the most cost-effective types of shoots, it is not without its own significant challenges and risks. Assembling a multi-client shoot is difficult and expensive. A seismic company must solicit multiple E&P companies all wanting a shoot of the same geographical area and data type. Further, the seismic company must have, or be able to cost-effectively assemble, a data gathering boat and data collection facilities in the selected geographical area, which may be anywhere in the world. Matching the needs of multiple E&P clients with the capability of the seismic company can take a long period of time and significant expense. If the seismic company fails to assemble the multi-client shoot, he will suffer a business loss. Further, it is likely that one or more of the E&P clients may make some concession in geographical or data-type preference to enjoy the financial advantage of joining a multi-client shoot.
Regardless of the type of shoot, speculative, proprietary or multi-client, there are many variables that can have a significant affect on both the profitability of the shoot to the seismic company and the value of the data to the E&P company. Logistical costs, administrative costs, broker costs, the cost of accidental or convenience-driven overshoots, can all affect the cost and profitability of a shoot.
It will thus be understood that seismic data collection today, particularly boat operation, can be a risky and inefficient business. The lack of predictable demand results in the taking of speculative shoots and the ad hoc marketing of these shoots. Because it is difficult for boat owners to predict future demand, they cannot easily determine where to efficiently locate boats.
From a consideration of the above, it will be understood that despite the importance of geophysical data to the development of world energy needs, the processes for collecting such data are not very efficient. As will now be explained, the current models for managing and distributing collected geophysical data are not in and of themselves efficient, either.
The totality of all geophysical data collected to date has been estimated to be in the multi-petabyte range in size. This collected data resides in a vast assortment of locations, including but not limited to: seismic acquisition companies, E&P companies, intermediary storage facilities and data warehouses. In fact, because of the processing issues associated with collecting and distributing data, collected data is likely to be copied to multiple locations, including the original collector, the end-user and often a facilitating intermediary.
There is often a desire on the part of a data owner to recoup its investment in collecting or buying the data by subsequently reselling it to other users. There is often a concomitant desire by E&P companies to recognize the cost efficiencies that can be realized by licensing access to or purchasing existing data. However, licensing or reselling data is often difficult for a variety of legal and logistical reasons.
As described above, data often resides in multiple locations. The exact location and ownership of the data may be uncertain. As a result of transmission, storage and processing, the quality of the data may be questionable. Data sets may be so large that it becomes inefficient if not impossible to sort them, identify their contents and distribute them to potential new users.
Access to geophysical data is typically sold on a ‘per shoot’ basis. That is, an E&P company must buy individual access to every shoot of interest. Further, geophysical data is often sold according to a tiered price structure. Because of the high costs of even ‘used’ data, a typical licensing structure may include providing access to ‘peek’ data at a first, less expensive cost, followed by access to full data at a second, higher cost. This tiered cost structure enables inexpensive preview of data with a higher fee paid only for data of interest. However, because of the size of the data sets, this type of tiered data distribution creates technical challenges in addition to all of the issues described above.
To address some of the issues described above, data brokers exist for buying and distributing seismic data. Such companies, including for example Seitel aud Veritas, acquire and broker data from various sources for resale or licensing to others. E&P companies such as EXXON, Chevron, Shell and others may license or resell their own proprietary data. In addition to brokering seismic data, indigopool.com is a company that brokers oilfield properties including the provision of supporting data (e.g. seismic surveys) available for review by interested buyers.
However, the mere collection and brokering of seismic data does not address, much less solve, many of the problems outlined above.
It is thus seen that there exists huge quantities of costly, collected geophysical data having potentially significant value to various users above and beyond those who sponsored the initial collections. However, significant problems exist with organizing, identifying, maintaining the integrity of and distributing such data to potential users. As described above there are significant challenges associated with efficiently selecting, collecting and distributing new data.
The various interested parties often find today's methodologies inefficient and costly. Boat owners are faced with unorganized, unpredictable demand that makes efficient boat placement and operation challenging if not impossible. E&P companies face huge expenditures to get access to limited data which may be of unexpectedly low value. Brokering of data attempts to address some of the challenges faced in the industry through more widespread distribution of existing data. However, brokering of seismic data does not address the core inefficiencies in collection and distribution described above.